well ill give them credit its easier to use and easier to get the end results to look good with each revision but if you strip out DX11 tessellation, everything you can do in Unreal Engine 4.0 could be done in Unreal Engine 2.0

they differ yes but in alot of ways they feel the same and not in a good way.

alot of the games characters feel like rehashes, seldom new more of the roid munchers, in most situations, and most of them that are first person tend to have mouse smoothing on, or various mouse issues in terms of input, i know in MoH A you cant fully disable the terrible smoothing, and to lessen the sensitivity results in not being able to move up or down. Theres better game engines then Unreal, and considering epic doesnt seldom change much under the hood i am colored unimpressed, especially when the majority of the games play the same, feel the same, there are a few standout games, but a few standouts dont make an engine great. Im just not impressed by more of the same

very little changed from Unreal 2.5 - 4.0 a few API updates but little else.

essentially from XBOX first gen to now. they have added support for new direct X features but very little in the terms of optimizations or performance improvements, litterally if you grafted on DX11 to Unreal 2.0 / 2.5 you could essentially do everything the engine currently does now, theres not much different.

adding to the list, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, even Alice: Madness Returns has the trademark of the UE3 by just the looks hehe. But indeed when i first saw Mirror's Edge i didn't thought it was UE3, perhaps because of the artistic style.

My only point is others in the industry are actually moving forward. while Epic still shovels the same shit from unreal engine 2.5

I want to see these companies push newer better tech, not more outdated code with stuff strapped taped and held on with band-aids to address issues.

4A tech engine from Metro 2033 fame, breaks cpu code down into individual tasks, instead of dedicated threads, so multi threading isnt an issue, it uses what it needs, and thats it,
Frostbite 2.0 granted code is based on Frostbite 1.0 it still now runs a more optimized CPU code path and offers damn good multi gpu performance, among other things not my favorite but it gets the job done,
Id Tech 5 kind of a let down honestly but the tech involved with mega texture is one of a kind and fairly interesting i suppose
Cryengine prefer this to version 2 or w.e it is that is used in Crysis 2, at least Crysis used dynamic lighting altho multi gpu was rather piss poor still stands as one of the few that used Dynamic lighting, back in 2007

Gamebryo, this engine is a bigger failure then Unreal Engine lol nuff said

overall im just unimpressed most of these engines even those looking forward can still trace base code back to 1999-2002 ish

All the hardware for wiiU already exists so why are they waiting for wiiU to release it?

Click to expand...

Wii U isn't going to be the final name, if I recall Nintendo said they planned on changing it. As for the hardware, it's just a beefed up 360 with a slightly better GPU (Reported to use the same CPU with 1 extra core, and the GPU being something RV770ish based). Most of this is offset by the ridiculous tabletroller they are using. It's gonna take a ton of power to stream information to that piece of crap, and rumors suggest they haven't even got it working properly.

As for Game Engines, I hope Unreal4 features more optimizations rather than silly extra features that nobody really uses. Frostbite 2 really set the bar for balancing amazing Aesthetics with great Performance.

Wii U isn't going to be the final name, if I recall Nintendo said they planned on changing it. As for the hardware, it's just a beefed up 360 with a slightly better GPU (Reported to use the same CPU with 1 extra core, and the GPU being something RV770ish based). Most of this is offset by the ridiculous tabletroller they are using. It's gonna take a ton of power to stream information to that piece of crap, and rumors suggest they haven't even got it working properly.

As for Game Engines, I hope Unreal4 features more optimizations rather than silly extra features that nobody really uses. Frostbite 2 really set the bar for balancing amazing Aesthetics with great Performance.

Click to expand...

A 4800 series GPU will make a big difference. 360 is only X1900XT level with HD series additions. Hopefully Nintendo will couple it with plenty of RAM/VRAM.

Unreal engine hasn't been real unique since UT99. 2.0-3.0 just feel like the engine trying to be Halo, or CoD. For UT99 it's only main competitor was Q3a. You could tell the difference between the two. But after that, Epic just lost it.

Agreed on Frostbite. When I played it in Bad Company 1, I saw for the first time, an engine that felt like it was it's own breed. But I do feel they've lost overtime on the destruction effects. BC2 and BF3 both improved in some ways but were so-so in others. Similar to Red Faction. In RF1 geomod allowed a lot of flexibility in destruction. But sequels to me seemed to sacrifice that destruction to be able to push better effects elsewhere.

I wouldn't anticipate a lot on the RAM\VRAM side. Nintendo has to keep the system affordable, and with those controllers costing a probable fortune, I wouldn't be surprised if they cut down on expenses when it comes to the system. 1GB shared would be the maxI would think, but it would not shock me at all if they even went as low as 512mb or something crappy like that.